"Product complaints and returns are often caused by poor design, but companies frequently dismiss them as 'nuisance calls,'...". A thesis study out of the Technical University of Enhoven also discovered, "The average consumer in the United States will struggle for 20 minutes to get a device working, before giving up, the study found." From Reuters report, "Complexity Causes 50% of Product Returns"
Let me take this moment to reiterate an important premise to those who insist on referring to the human element as a "user" — clearly a role-based title. Based on your premise, when an individual disengages and refuses to partake in a product, what role do you assign to them then?
March 8, 2006: Not to my surprise, someone contacted me directly, asking again why I have such an issue with the term "user". A few excerpts from my reply: "Our goal should not be one of use. Our goal is to get people down the path they want to go with the least effort possible. I'm not suggesting that there will be no 'interface'. I am suggesting that until we start thinking of the possibilities of working without one, we'll never begin to uncover new dimensions....as professionals we tend to overfocus on the digital world -- when the greatest potential of our craft goes underused in service design. Moreso in this space than in others the term 'user' is irrelevant....to TRULY represent the focus of the individual we have to make them the FOCUS -- the starting point of reference. Linguistically then, they 'use' a product, but they do so on a path in which the use of the 'thing' is subjected to their goal. The title associated to the individual should be one that reflects their goal, not their relationship to the 'thing' (which makes the 'thing' the center of focus)."
Today I also found a quote that illustrates this from another perspective: "We don't just use technology, they point out; we live with it." [source: Amazon review of book "Technology as Experience
"]
BOB JACOBSON is fascinated by the experience of experience. A planner and technologist, Bob has a Ph.D. in Urban Planning & Design from UCLA. He's been a policy researcher, technology CEO, science writer, and consultant. As a Fulbright Scholar, he studied cellular telephony's impacts on transborder communities in the Nordic Arctic Circle. Bob edited Information Design (MIT Press 2000) and is now writing a book on the theory and practice of creating edifying, transformative experiences.
PAULA THORNTON says, "Understanding human behavior (economics), optimizing interactions (design) and facilitating conversations (markets), are the means to achieve strategic differentiation. This is the focus of our discipline. It is not a 'nice to have'‚ and is not, like documentation once was, an afterthought. It is the means by which to start a strategic discussion and the means by which to drive a tactical initiative. All design should be evidence-based."
1. Fred on March 9, 2006 7:21 PM writes...
Paula, I've given a good bit of thought to our recent exchange, and I can only conclude that you are missing the point.
A user is one who uses something. Why? To accomplish a goal, of course. To me, that's self-evident.
When I have designed something, or when I advise someone on how to proceed or what items are needed, I am not doing so in a vacuum, but in the context of assisting that person in accomplishing the goal, whatever that goal might be. In that context, I suggest that it does not matter whether I use the word "user," or "customer," or whatever other word you might care to suggest to describe that person, so long as I remember that my job is to assist that person in accomplishing the goal.
Yes, there are designers who forget this. Yes, there are designers who focus on their own goals, instead of the goals of those who they should be assisting in their quests. Yes, there are designers who, knowing how an implement they have designed works in the ivory tower, do not care about its usefulness in the real world. That, though unfortunate, says nothing about the meaning of the words they use. It does, however, say a lot about their image, their focus, and the corporate cultures in which they work. And, in my opinion, changing those vitally important points of view is going to take a lot more than a change in terminology. We need changes in substance, not style.
But heck, I'm just a guy who sells auto parts. What do I know?
Permalink to Comment2. Paula Thornton on March 9, 2006 7:54 PM writes...
Fred: Thanks for your persistence. As I mentioned when I wrote to you directly, you are perfectly welcomed to engage the word 'user' as part of your language.
The issue here is one for design professionals and the perspective we take when evaluating a problem space or opportunity. It's a semantics issue where use of the term to define what we do, limits the breadth of our work.
It has nothing to do with the use of the term in common language. Use the term freely.
Permalink to Comment